Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th May 2010 22:23 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 424828
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-03-26
I read the other day a very nice comparison between Ext3, Ext4, XFS and Btrfs. Ext3 outperformed Ext4 by far. Btrfs surprised everybody by even outperforming Ext3 on most tests (though not all tests).
I'll try and find that review and post a link. But it's not the only review I have found with come to similar conclusions. Btrfs is quite usable already and the built-in compression made the filesystem perform even better (with todays fast hardware).
Please do, I'd be very interested to read that.
From my own *unscientific* usages, I've found Ext4 a very pleasant upgrade from Ext3 if just because of the significantly improved fsck times. But I've never really looked into it any more than that. So I'd be interested to know how much of an improvement / step backwards Ext4 really is.